@muzicmaker2001 No. Aluminum has a very low melting point, between 800 and 1100*F. Jet fuel burns at 1800*F. Thats why all aluminum debris was outside the building.
Also, at 1:15 there is another piece of debris. Below the center of the picture is a piece of debris that looks a lot like part of the nose of a 757.
Caneraman Bob Pugh was on site approx 10 mins after impact. Where is this 'between 800 and 1100*F" fire that melted the entire exterior skin of an 80 tons plane? Did the fire also melt the cockpit, fuselage, both engines, wings, tail section, every piece of luggage and all 239 chairs on-board?
@muzicmaker2001 In 1997, SilkAir flight 185 crashed at high speed into a river do to a pilot suicide. No large pieces of that flight were found, only small. Flight 77 also crashed at a high speed. Small pieces were found. In fact, over 75% of Flight 77 was found.
I have had comment discusions with you on your other videos. Somehow, you think that not finding chairs=no 757. But several witnesses reported seeing bodies still strapped to seats.
Ya see. You can't have both ways. If the majority of the plane disintegrated and no large pieces were found, how were intact passengers (human flesh) found still strapped to their seats? And I'm guessing that you have absolutely no photographic evidence to support this?
There were no chairs found because there was no plane. Also, sink this in. There is no photographic evidence of even one body identified as a passenger. That includes youtube, google, yahoo or anywhere. You came to this page obiously on a quest to defend 911, so why not prove me wrong with a link?
No link of passengers? What a surprise. And no, I don't believe that there is an official autopsy report. How could there be? No bodies were found. But where did you get this "99% of Americans do" lie? Did you take a poll? It's interesting that 79% of viewers of this videos that left a like/dislike disagree with you.
I'm sure you have a link to this poll? Or is in the same place as the link showing bodies identified as passengers? Probably a long wait for that, huh? And usually, like means agree. Or maybe in this case, you think like means they like the pretty colors in the clip?
I don't understand why only one video clip has been released and why it is just a slideshow of five pictures linked to one another. It is also strange how none of the five pictures capture American Airlines Flight 77 heading towards the Pentagon. We only see a long white thing slightly below the top right hand corner and then a explosion at the front of the building. Questions...
I think it was a Unmanned drone or missile some what disguised as flight 77 that crashed in. No way was it a huge jet airliner. @jawsflounderace "American Airlines Global Hawk" is what hit the pentagon that day. Government is lying....
The truth is rising. You can fool some of the fools all the time but you cant fool all of the fools all the time unless your a fat, lazy, ignorant american fool. 911 was an inside job.
@muzicmaker2001 He did mention in one of his videos that photographic evidence does exist but he did not include them due to being gruesome to show on Youtube but he has posted a link to where you can view them and I myself had seen them including one where you see a man's head all covered in ash with his mouth wide open surrounded by alot of dusty debris, I know its disturbing but its from the Pentagon for sure
Yes, I think I have seen the photos you are refering to. They are labeled, "Photograph of a body part found inside the Pentagon after Flight 77 crashed into the building" not as passengers.
Oh darn I thought the dark cabal I am part of would plant a fake comment history and phony "friends" We'll have to take care of that. Well, got to go I've got lunch with Elvis and Hitler in a few minutes at our secret hidden bunker in area 51.
Ever notice how no major tragedy has happed for the past two hundred years has happened without some hidden conspiracy? These same people who perpetuate this ongoing denial of reason were also arguing that John Wilks Booth escaped and lived to die of old age; FDR knew the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor; and that Princess Diana was murdered by the royal family. Think of it EVERY tragic event has a set of these nuts who invent a hidden history.
take a good look, this is either a 911 shill or a moron. beware of each. by looking at his page (no friends, and all recent activity pointed at 99), i'm going with 911 shill.
I really like this but I gotta tell you your speech pattern is annoying. I realize you are trying to keep it simple but the way you speak so slowly and emphasize each work makes me feel like you are talking to pre schoolers...Just talk in a normal conversational voice, not like we are all a bunch of idiots please...thank you and keep up the good work...9 11 was an inside job.
FDR and CVR Show that the cockpit doors were NEVER opened after the pilots entered.What does that tell you My government never lies to us idiots? Why do you think NONE of them were said to be found.BUT THEY WERE FOUND,ALL OF THEM.
i think we all know that 9/11 was inside job,but now what? what can we do? the government just say "no comment!" and we just to live with it,sad world
Friendly advise; If you do not have adequate knowledge in a given subject area, don't draw conclusions based on what you don't understand- From this half-baked video, its obvious you do not have a background in aeronautics / aviation accidents, or even basic physics for that matter.
are you a fucking retard? just go to google images and type in pentagon plane debris!!!!!!!!!!!!!! they even have a photo of how the piece of metal at 2:03 matches a 757!!!!!!!!!!!!! you people are fucking creationist!!!!!!!!!!!!
thank you for ignoring by pointing on thing i said, more reason to call u a creationist, because you and ray confort follow the same logic. you make your conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job then you go out and find ways to support that conclusion, just like creationist make a conclusion god created the earth and then find ways to twist evidence to their favor. but tell me Mr. pseudo-expert, how do u explain the pictures of identified passengers of flight 77 in google images?
thank you for ignoring by pointing on thing i said, more reason to call u a creationist, because you and ray confort follow the same logic. you make your conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job then you go out and find ways to support that conclusion, just like creationist make a conclusion god created the earth and then find ways to twist evidence to their favor. but tell me Mr. pseudo-expert, how do u explain the pictures of identified passengers of flight 77 in google images?
wow dude you clearly have no idea how to answer me... this is what the 9/11 "truth movement" boils down to... scream something as loud as possible, twist physics, science and logic, than when some one asks a question that gets them stuck, they ignore the asker... this why less people are believing you crap and stop believing creationist lies about 9/11... i know cuz im one of them...
The problem is you are trying to defending an event that makes no logicial sense.
1. There's no wreckage directly at the impact hole from an 80 ton plane crashing there.
2. There's no fire or burn damage on the lawn or inside the building from the 5000 gals of jet fuel that dispersed outside and entered the building. Also, witnesses state the wings sheared off at impact. No wing debris anywhere and no fire on the lawn from the wings being filled with fuel.
the problem with your nonsense is that you're trying to make incredible claims that require EXTRAORDINARY evidence, and all u have is lack of SOME evidence and misconceptions.
1: There is Hundreds of wreckage directly at the impact hole and inside the hole, oh wait to you that debris "is not big enough" based on one picture...
2. why would there be fire outside the building? and retard, there is hundreds of burn damage if you just look for them, in google, not in loose change
There is Hundreds of wreckage directly at the impact hole
Would it be too much trouble to actually back up your claims with evidence? Reality: There is no wreckage directly at the impact hole.
why would there be fire outside the building?
Many witnesses state that the wings sheared off at impact. I don't know if you knew this or not, but the wings are filled with falmmable stuff known as jet fuel. When fire comes in contact with jet fuel, there is usually more fire.
Uhhhh, Einstein. I think everyone in the free world has seen those photos before. So, you're not uncovering any mystery here, ok? Notice that there is absolutely no videos showing the same wreckage? Why? Here's video footage from camerman Bob Pugh who was on scene 5-10 mins after impact. Note two things. There is no wreckage anywhere near the impact hole and the most intense fire is from the generator.
And did you notice that in the link you posted, all wreckage is isolated from the impact hole and other wreckage. Its as if the wreckage is all alone posing for the camera..nice. Use your head.
3) sigh.... not every single body was found idiot... some were never identified, just like not every single part of debris was found, also parts of the engine did not "vanish" you idiot, just look it up on google, you even said it your self in your video!!! so are yo trying to say that somehow the uliminati boogieman got 184 charted bodies and placed them in what is (according to loose change) the most surveillanced building in the world, without a single soul noticing?
oh! so first u say how can a fire disintegrate a plane? but not bodies to the point that they cant be identified. now you say all but one (which is wrong because 4 bodies weren't identified... if only one was missing you can rule him out by process of elimination) was identified by DNA.... thats how u MORON!!!!! DNA !!!! u answered your own question, they identify them using DNA!!! you people contradict your selves more than the bible...
As I said before, I'm sensing that you might be a little unstable, but I will continue. Once again..not including the hijackers, all passengers except one were identified by DNA. But, none of the wreckage was officially verified. I don't know what to say anymore...lol
I think when an 80 ton plane crashes into a small hole in a building, you shouldn't have to rely on ANY witnesses...don't you agree? But, here's what a real plane VS. building crash looks like. Educate yourself, ok?
exactly we shouldnt need eye witness reports... but thanks to people like you wee need to prove the obvious, look theres a family portrait... but wait my dad isnt in the photo, that must mean my dad doesn't exist, thats the logic you're using...
Witnesses state that some part of the plane touched the ground, the wings sheared off, the tail came off, an engine ricocheted off the building into the mall parking area, the fuselage blew up when hitting the ground, the plane cartwheeled into the building. Reality: There is no physical evidence to support any of these accounts.
oh so now you claim that people saw an airplane, and saw its tail and wings snap off.... a minute ago in your video u said that the guy never heard or saw a plane. so which is it? plane or no plane?. ever heard of the Innocence Program? a program to get wrongfully accused people out of prison, most of those wrong convictions were due to faulty eyewitnesses account so cant claim a nation wide conspiracy of Free-masons, based on Faulty eyewitness accounts, that actually got to
5. There's no seismic data for an 80 ton plane crashing (and disintegrating) ground level against a reinforced building at 500++mph. Not even a blip..
6. The FDR data shows that the plane was too high (480 ft) to hit any of the light poles.
oh yeah... cuz you're 2-3 pictures chosen out of Dylan Avery's ass are a virtual tour of the pentagon on september 11... so because i cant find piece of the plane or bodies in those 2-3 pictures,that must mean a cruise missile or predator drone who no one saw was what really hit the pentagon, ah now i get it... if it wasnt for the fact that people actually saw an american airlines plane, and that piece of the plane and bodies can be seen in some pictures... stupid youtube wont let me post links
@quinofking Now, back to reality.. No video/photo of a 757 No evidence of the majority of wreckage (cockpit, wings, tail, (2) engines, fuselage, luggage, 239 chairs) No verification of the wreckage No video evidence of a fire at the impact hole/lawn No evidence of even one body identified as a passenger No engine/wing/tail impact damage No seismic data for the impact FDR data shows the plane missing all light poles MAJOR witness inconsistencies
We have several photos of bodies several identifying passengers from flight 77 , and several debris of the plane... you do realize that a 757 is mostly aluminum right? aluminum not 60 tons of titanium and steel... just because certain parts of airplane were'nt "found" doesnt negate the other hundreds of pieces, where are the pieces of the drone or missile u speak of? its called google look up bodies of the pentagon on google images!!!
@muzicmaker2001 If thats the case, what happened to the passengers? There was flight with that flightnumber in the air, with a flight manifest, passengers etc....what happened to the actual flight?
I am on your side but i want you to be factual. At 1:19...you say there are no pieces of plane and your wrong in that moment.Please fix add an annotation.Thank You.
What a fucking farse! They wanted war, and they got it. America is now a corporation that occupies, destroys and rebuilds nations. War is the game of kings. Do the research america! We need educated patriots for REAL change!!!!!!!!!
You can verify it with your own eyes, that number is of the aircraft, and is in AA records.
To suggest further that this is a conspiracy means you also suggest the airline was in on it, and considering how they have fared after 9/11, you would fail.
I enlist here no man off the street, the person in question is a AA mechanic.
You'll have to join the forum to see his full profile, but his authortiy on this is stated.
He does speak for AA, whom owned the plane in question, so either you produce your own expert to rebuttal him, or you just as well admit you were wrong.
You do also know that there's no evidence that the wrecakage shown is even at the Pentagon. That could be my front lawn right next ot the swing sets. LOL Think before you post, ok?
"You do also know that there's no evidence that the wrecakage shown is even at the Pentagon."
Oh, so you're argueing this now are we?
I mean if you want to go that route, sure, nearly every picture taken could ahve been "somewhere else", that they were taken at the scene does I suppose take a certian "leap of faith".
I can only give you this: the picture in question was taken by the same photographer, who took other pictures that were unquestionably at the pentagon.
Yes, cool. Show a picture (or better yet video) of the wreckage with the Pentagon in the background. Also, show the official wreckage verification confirming the wreckage as being part of the Flight 77. I can smell the excuses on the horizon...lol
I don't need to produce such a thing, I believe the photographer is honest.
Either you prove he isn't, or we are done here.
And an AA employee using AA records to identify wreckage is official verification, I've given you the serieal number you asked for, now produce a conflicting source I asked for.
1. Give me a reason to suspect the photo isn't honest, or your "negative evidence", isn't enough.
In the OJ simpson case, they did this by proving the GLove did not fit, you prove the same, PROVE to me there's a reason to suspect this photo isn't what it claims to me, or you're just grasping straws.
2. AA is official verification, you lost that one.
1. It's just a lawn. Could be any location, right?
2. "AA" could mean this was from any American Airlines plane or possibly from an Alcoholic Anonymous plane? LOL. Nothing verified here at all except your desperation and obvious agenda to keep the 911 lie alive.
1. No, it's the Pentagon's lawn. Either your prove there's reason to believe the photographer is dishonest, or you have nothing. Making claims and grasping straws earns you nothing.
2. I wasn't talking about the lable, I was talking about an AA employee using AA records to prove what it is.
In that instance all you can say is "oh the records were faked", in which case all I'm going to say is "screw you".
1. No, there is proof, the photographer whom took the picture, also took pictures from the scene with the Pentagon in view, implying the photo is from the scene as well.
If you're going to suggest the photo is not from there, then you have to prove the photographer is questionable, until then, the photo stays as presumed.
2. Yes, it's funny you call American Airlines wrong, since you know, it's THEIR plane, and THEIR records.
You saying the photo isn't from the scene doesn't disprove it, it just means you're getting desperate.
You are also calling American Airlines WRONG, the owners of the damn plane, again, who exactly gave you that insight or authority? As far as I've seen you're just a punk off the street, not a crash investigator.
Either you tell me WHY AA is wrong, or we're done here.
answer this: if 77 did not crash into the pentagon then where did it go??? and the person who was in his car when he plane flew past only heard little noise because it was going so fast. doesnt take much to work it out yea?? and i think its sick to deny somthing like this !
1. The metal used on any aircraft including flight 77 uses light weight sheet metal that is the thinness of an human hair.
2. Engine parts are not steel, they are aluminum because they need to be able to take strong forces acting against them and extreme heat, obviously this man has not done any research..
"Army Staff Sgt. Mark Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats.."-USA Today, 09/13/2001
I am confused maybe you can help me out, you say flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, yet you say a Army SSGT discovered bodies in the plane. So my question is, did you think flight 77 did or did not hit the pentagon?
That's called a lie. Another lie is how the majority of the plane vanshed/disintegrated/melted/whatever, but all passengers were identified by DNA. There's no proof of these bodies, but they were identified. ok...
And the logical conclusion is that not one argument in this video is valid.
There all straw arguements based and psuedo facts and science, just like all truther arguments.
You're not getting past the people whom were there that day with this crap, and FYI, the largest pieces of the shuttle recovered were only about 6 feet across, pieces that large WERE recovered from Flight 77.
Can you (or any traveling debunker) explain for once what happened to the wings, tail, cockpit, fuselage, (2) engines, luggage, 239 chairs, etc? Bonus question: Where did the 5000 gals of jet fuel go? Did it combust on the 2 sec fire in the CCTV? Let me know....
Yes, there's pictures of pieces of all of that, much of it melted in the fires, but some was recovered, even an engine in relatively intact condition.
The fuel evaporated or burned, and fire lasted far longer than "2 seconds", stop using that straw argument, testimony from the firefighters at scene talked of fires lasting until 9/13, not likely of the fuel, but still.
Apparently, the FDR data shows that the "plane" missed all light poles and approached the Pentagon at an incline. This contradicts the official version and the CCVT.
Hey dude, I just want you to know, you're make an ass of yourself here.
How many crash sites have you looked at? I've seen several, including this one, and I actually saw the debris that 757 left, I can even give you pictures of that, and the bodies recovered from the wreckage.
It's nice to know how little research you put into this, makes debunking you naive assholes who weren't there, and think they noticed something we didn't, all the easier.
The space shuttle didn't break up in such large piece by the way, the largest in fact was only 6 ft across, there were pieces from Flight 77 of similiar size, so that analogy doesn't work.
"pieces" of the bodies were recovered, as well as relatively intact bodies. There a link to them online if you recall.
The damage also extends 300 feet, why exactly the speaker in this video seems think you'd see all traces of the plane within the first 10 confounds me.
Straw arguement, a plane running into a light pole does not mean it will lose control, in Flight 77's case the mass of its wings were enough to shove them out of the way without hurting its ability to fly, United 191 did something similiar when it collidedinto lights over a highway, before continuing on into the airport it was trying to land at, straight into one of the water tanks.
So please, stop trying to list that crap as evidence, it's not.
No kid, I "believe" I'am right, because I'm an Aviation Major, I know people who saw the attack and were inside the Pentagon that day, I've been to the Pentagon and know everything relevant about it, and i know the practciality of it all.
I don't even need the "official story", I know what happened, and it amuses me you think you know more than I do, you don't, you just watched Loose Change in your spare time, I lived this, my family lived this, you got nothing.
These are people unsure of what they saw in a fraction of a second, or you being overly literal again.
None of this denies that a plane crashed there, and thus irrelevent.
Show me testimony of what people saw while the plane was still in flight, of people that claim they saw something other than a plane, heard something else, words that SUPPORTS something other than a plane crashed there, or you admit, you have nothing either than your own "suspicion".
I guess they all missed what happened to the NOSE also..ya know, the front the plane? More excuses for the witness accounts? Either stand by them or dismiss them..
They found the nose. I stand by what they mean, I don't have to stand by their literal account, and in fact, it would be a poor investigator that would do so, but luckily you aren't one, are you?
Let me take a stab at your logic here. Just a stab. You stand by the fact that all saw a plane, but make excuses for the inconsistencies that don't mirror or match the official version? Is that about right? And as an investigator, shouldn't you evaluate the whole account?
Your logic makes no sense. I have to admit there was a plane when you can't even produce any direct evidence verifying the plane? You're funny dude...
No comment on all of the witnesses that saw the plane hit the ground? Another strawman? Did they all correct themselves at a later date? Overly literal again? Let me know...
That's your strawman, you think people who confuse the plane hitting the ground instead of the ground floor of the Pentagon is a valid arguement, it's not, it doens't deny a plane hit, and it doesn't support whatever the hell you're trying to prove.
Show me the testimony of what I asked for, or this arguement of yours is debunked.
Oh, they all confused the plane as hitting the ground? Ok, right..It's interesting how debunkers point to the many people who witnessed the plane, but make excuses for their inconsistent accounts? That makes no sense...
Yes, the Facade of the Pentagon intially stood up, it doesn't surprise me some confused the aircraft with hitting the ground in front instead of the Pentagon itself.
And still yet, NONE of this denies a plane crashed there. So tell me, what is your point, what is your arguement here? Because it's trully escaping me right now., if you're going to argue this, then you admit there was a plane.
2. The pictures were taken by FEMA investigators, so yes, OFFICIAL verification is there.
3. Read it again,th ere is a statement by the NTSB listed there
4. Yes, just like the F-4. Pieces were recovered, but not in segements much larger than a few feet.
5. And you know what such a fire should look like? You know what? I'm just going to trust the firefighters who were there over you, you know since they were there and all.
6. The Moussaoui Trial exhibits do not show passenger(S) still strapped in their seats. There are no photos available showing even 10 bodies of the 184 victims...
yet they fond 93% of flight 77 i dont think it was a plane
ryannewman4life1 3 weeks ago
@ryannewman4life1
Dude, you're on some sort of campaign, huh? LOL. Please post the proof (photos/videos) of 93% of the plane...
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
MegaYeshua33 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 What part of the global hawk do you believe those pieces were from?
MegaYeshua33 1 day ago
The skin of a 757 is accually thin aluminum. As in, as thin as those metalic sheets of met at the site
PostalCode74 1 month ago
@PostalCode74
I guess so thin that the majority of it just vanished, right?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 No. Aluminum has a very low melting point, between 800 and 1100*F. Jet fuel burns at 1800*F. Thats why all aluminum debris was outside the building.
Also, at 1:15 there is another piece of debris. Below the center of the picture is a piece of debris that looks a lot like part of the nose of a 757.
PostalCode74 1 month ago
@PostalCode74
Caneraman Bob Pugh was on site approx 10 mins after impact. Where is this 'between 800 and 1100*F" fire that melted the entire exterior skin of an 80 tons plane? Did the fire also melt the cockpit, fuselage, both engines, wings, tail section, every piece of luggage and all 239 chairs on-board?
watch?v=-xtEJ4zrIPM
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 In 1997, SilkAir flight 185 crashed at high speed into a river do to a pilot suicide. No large pieces of that flight were found, only small. Flight 77 also crashed at a high speed. Small pieces were found. In fact, over 75% of Flight 77 was found.
I have had comment discusions with you on your other videos. Somehow, you think that not finding chairs=no 757. But several witnesses reported seeing bodies still strapped to seats.
was found
PostalCode74 1 month ago
@PostalCode74
Ya see. You can't have both ways. If the majority of the plane disintegrated and no large pieces were found, how were intact passengers (human flesh) found still strapped to their seats? And I'm guessing that you have absolutely no photographic evidence to support this?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 You need to understand that not finding chairs doesn't mean that there was no plane. It also doesn't mean that you won't find bodies.
You can't expect to find pictures of bodies strapped into sears on youtube. Try a google image search
PostalCode74 1 month ago
@PostalCode74
There were no chairs found because there was no plane. Also, sink this in. There is no photographic evidence of even one body identified as a passenger. That includes youtube, google, yahoo or anywhere. You came to this page obiously on a quest to defend 911, so why not prove me wrong with a link?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 Official documents from the atopsies exist. If you don't believe me, then I must inform you that over 99% of americans do.
PostalCode74 1 month ago
@PostalCode74
No link of passengers? What a surprise. And no, I don't believe that there is an official autopsy report. How could there be? No bodies were found. But where did you get this "99% of Americans do" lie? Did you take a poll? It's interesting that 79% of viewers of this videos that left a like/dislike disagree with you.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 Your right. The number of americans who believe the official theory is accually about 95% depending on the poll.
By the way, why do you believe that when someone rates your video, it means that they agree?
PostalCode74 1 month ago
@PostalCode74
I'm sure you have a link to this poll? Or is in the same place as the link showing bodies identified as passengers? Probably a long wait for that, huh? And usually, like means agree. Or maybe in this case, you think like means they like the pretty colors in the clip?
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
megamogx 5 months ago in playlist fishy 911
/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o
/watch?v=5qFsjdymqSk
megamogx 5 months ago in playlist fishy 911
The only theory about the 9/11 pentagon attack is that a plane crashed into it.
Flight 77 is innocent until proven guilty.
It should be easy to prove a plane actually hit the pentagon with the 80+ cameras recording the scene.
Sy3m 6 months ago
@Sy3m
I don't understand why only one video clip has been released and why it is just a slideshow of five pictures linked to one another. It is also strange how none of the five pictures capture American Airlines Flight 77 heading towards the Pentagon. We only see a long white thing slightly below the top right hand corner and then a explosion at the front of the building. Questions...
ChernovFan100 1 month ago
I think it was a Unmanned drone or missile some what disguised as flight 77 that crashed in. No way was it a huge jet airliner. @jawsflounderace "American Airlines Global Hawk" is what hit the pentagon that day. Government is lying....
MasterPacker12 7 months ago
Look up "American Airlines Global Hawk" on google images
jawsflounderace 8 months ago
The truth is rising. You can fool some of the fools all the time but you cant fool all of the fools all the time unless your a fat, lazy, ignorant american fool. 911 was an inside job.
Daddyo930 8 months ago
I love this guys sarcasm!!! There is nothing there!!!!
runitpower 8 months ago
All but four people were found.
crashnk68 8 months ago
@crashnk68
There is no photographic evidence of even one body identified as a passenger.
muzicmaker2001 8 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 You might wanna check out RKOwens4's videos, he has a whole lot of debunk videos especially on what hit the pentagon
ShadowLinkxMaster 7 months ago
@ShadowLinkxMaster
Yes, already been there and there is still no photographic evidence of even one body identified as a passenger. If you find this evidence, post it.
muzicmaker2001 7 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 He did mention in one of his videos that photographic evidence does exist but he did not include them due to being gruesome to show on Youtube but he has posted a link to where you can view them and I myself had seen them including one where you see a man's head all covered in ash with his mouth wide open surrounded by alot of dusty debris, I know its disturbing but its from the Pentagon for sure
ShadowLinkxMaster 7 months ago
@ShadowLinkxMaster
Yes, I think I have seen the photos you are refering to. They are labeled, "Photograph of a body part found inside the Pentagon after Flight 77 crashed into the building" not as passengers.
vaed*uscourts*gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution*html
Exhibits: P200042, P200045 P200047 P200048
muzicmaker2001 7 months ago
@ShadowLinkxMaster Tell more about it its interesting.
KaanSubasi1972 5 months ago
@KaanSubasi1972 Those are the only pictures, everything else was just debris
ShadowLinkxMaster 5 months ago
@ShadowLinkxMaster Can you give link ?
KaanSubasi1972 5 months ago
Oh darn I thought the dark cabal I am part of would plant a fake comment history and phony "friends" We'll have to take care of that. Well, got to go I've got lunch with Elvis and Hitler in a few minutes at our secret hidden bunker in area 51.
IamtheBurceDickenson 10 months ago
Ever notice how no major tragedy has happed for the past two hundred years has happened without some hidden conspiracy? These same people who perpetuate this ongoing denial of reason were also arguing that John Wilks Booth escaped and lived to die of old age; FDR knew the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor; and that Princess Diana was murdered by the royal family. Think of it EVERY tragic event has a set of these nuts who invent a hidden history.
IamtheBurceDickenson 10 months ago
@IamtheBurceDickenson
take a good look, this is either a 911 shill or a moron. beware of each. by looking at his page (no friends, and all recent activity pointed at 99), i'm going with 911 shill.
seeknthetruth 10 months ago
I really like this but I gotta tell you your speech pattern is annoying. I realize you are trying to keep it simple but the way you speak so slowly and emphasize each work makes me feel like you are talking to pre schoolers...Just talk in a normal conversational voice, not like we are all a bunch of idiots please...thank you and keep up the good work...9 11 was an inside job.
dolfanlinda 10 months ago
W E L L . D O N E !!! Yes, there was NO PLANE at the Pentagon!
NOTE: 2:02 "Why doesn't the military prove their innocence..." Dude... its not UP TO an accused party to "prove ... innocence".
May I encourage you to re-edit this GREAT presentation?
MeInTheCornfield 11 months ago
FDR and CVR Show that the cockpit doors were NEVER opened after the pilots entered.What does that tell you My government never lies to us idiots? Why do you think NONE of them were said to be found.BUT THEY WERE FOUND,ALL OF THEM.
koolbossjock 11 months ago
i think we all know that 9/11 was inside job,but now what? what can we do? the government just say "no comment!" and we just to live with it,sad world
manxdude1 1 year ago
It was a missle...Rumsfeld slipped and said it.
okturus 1 year ago
Friendly advise; If you do not have adequate knowledge in a given subject area, don't draw conclusions based on what you don't understand- From this half-baked video, its obvious you do not have a background in aeronautics / aviation accidents, or even basic physics for that matter.
jjouney 1 year ago
@jjouney
I have found that people with an obvious agenda to defend the 911 lie tend to make up their own physics to match their agenda.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
yeah, they call themselves 9/11 "Truthers" and their agenda is to hate america and always say they are wrong...
quinofking 1 year ago
are you a fucking retard? just go to google images and type in pentagon plane debris!!!!!!!!!!!!!! they even have a photo of how the piece of metal at 2:03 matches a 757!!!!!!!!!!!!! you people are fucking creationist!!!!!!!!!!!!
quinofking 1 year ago
@quinofking
Hey, take it down a notch. We are talking about the 911 lie, not creationism, ok?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
thank you for ignoring by pointing on thing i said, more reason to call u a creationist, because you and ray confort follow the same logic. you make your conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job then you go out and find ways to support that conclusion, just like creationist make a conclusion god created the earth and then find ways to twist evidence to their favor. but tell me Mr. pseudo-expert, how do u explain the pictures of identified passengers of flight 77 in google images?
quinofking 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
thank you for ignoring by pointing on thing i said, more reason to call u a creationist, because you and ray confort follow the same logic. you make your conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job then you go out and find ways to support that conclusion, just like creationist make a conclusion god created the earth and then find ways to twist evidence to their favor. but tell me Mr. pseudo-expert, how do u explain the pictures of identified passengers of flight 77 in google images?
quinofking 1 year ago
@quinofking
Just copying n' pasting the same thing proves what?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
>face palm< cuz u ignored my question idiot no why dont you do me a favor and answer it!!!!!!!!
quinofking 1 year ago
@quinofking
Sorry dude, but you sound a little unstable. Cheers...
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
wow dude you clearly have no idea how to answer me... this is what the 9/11 "truth movement" boils down to... scream something as loud as possible, twist physics, science and logic, than when some one asks a question that gets them stuck, they ignore the asker... this why less people are believing you crap and stop believing creationist lies about 9/11... i know cuz im one of them...
quinofking 1 year ago
@quinofking
The problem is you are trying to defending an event that makes no logicial sense.
1. There's no wreckage directly at the impact hole from an 80 ton plane crashing there.
2. There's no fire or burn damage on the lawn or inside the building from the 5000 gals of jet fuel that dispersed outside and entered the building. Also, witnesses state the wings sheared off at impact. No wing debris anywhere and no fire on the lawn from the wings being filled with fuel.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@quinofking
3. Debunkers claim that the majority of the plane disintegrated at impact but fail to explain these contradictions if so:
a. Passengers were supposedly found still strapped to their seats. Titanium-steel alloy engines vanish, but human flesh survives intact?
b. Some part of the plane went thru 9 ft of concrete (diagonally), traveled an additional 300 ft and created the perfectly circular C-ring exit hole.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
the problem with your nonsense is that you're trying to make incredible claims that require EXTRAORDINARY evidence, and all u have is lack of SOME evidence and misconceptions.
1: There is Hundreds of wreckage directly at the impact hole and inside the hole, oh wait to you that debris "is not big enough" based on one picture...
2. why would there be fire outside the building? and retard, there is hundreds of burn damage if you just look for them, in google, not in loose change
quinofking 1 year ago
@quinofking
There is Hundreds of wreckage directly at the impact hole
Would it be too much trouble to actually back up your claims with evidence? Reality: There is no wreckage directly at the impact hole.
why would there be fire outside the building?
Many witnesses state that the wings sheared off at impact. I don't know if you knew this or not, but the wings are filled with falmmable stuff known as jet fuel. When fire comes in contact with jet fuel, there is usually more fire.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
look it up on google images!!!
here look at this video and actually tell me what u think:
watch?v=iBHi9CbrNf4
and heres one showing your precious missing debris, are u gonna recoil and blindly defend your faith on the 9/11 lie movement or acknowledge facts?
watch?v=YTNRkb7AaQk&feature=related
quinofking 1 year ago
@quinofking
"look it up on google images!!!"
Uhhhh, Einstein. I think everyone in the free world has seen those photos before. So, you're not uncovering any mystery here, ok? Notice that there is absolutely no videos showing the same wreckage? Why? Here's video footage from camerman Bob Pugh who was on scene 5-10 mins after impact. Note two things. There is no wreckage anywhere near the impact hole and the most intense fire is from the generator.
watch?v=-xtEJ4zrIPM
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@quinofking
And did you notice that in the link you posted, all wreckage is isolated from the impact hole and other wreckage. Its as if the wreckage is all alone posing for the camera..nice. Use your head.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
3) sigh.... not every single body was found idiot... some were never identified, just like not every single part of debris was found, also parts of the engine did not "vanish" you idiot, just look it up on google, you even said it your self in your video!!! so are yo trying to say that somehow the uliminati boogieman got 184 charted bodies and placed them in what is (according to loose change) the most surveillanced building in the world, without a single soul noticing?
quinofking 1 year ago
@quinofking
3. not every single body was found idiot...
All passengers except one were identified by DNA.
also parts of the engine did not "vanish" you idiot,
How do I believe now? You or actual witness?
"I dove towards the ground and watched this great big engine from this beautiful airplane just VAPORIZE,"-Frank Probst
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
oh! so first u say how can a fire disintegrate a plane? but not bodies to the point that they cant be identified. now you say all but one (which is wrong because 4 bodies weren't identified... if only one was missing you can rule him out by process of elimination) was identified by DNA.... thats how u MORON!!!!! DNA !!!! u answered your own question, they identify them using DNA!!! you people contradict your selves more than the bible...
quinofking 1 year ago
@quinofking
As I said before, I'm sensing that you might be a little unstable, but I will continue. Once again..not including the hijackers, all passengers except one were identified by DNA. But, none of the wreckage was officially verified. I don't know what to say anymore...lol
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
heres one regarding your stupid eyewitnesses accounts... tell me what u think.
watch?v=t1wQ2BJsgx0&feature=related
quinofking 1 year ago
@quinofking
"tell me what u think."
I think when an 80 ton plane crashes into a small hole in a building, you shouldn't have to rely on ANY witnesses...don't you agree? But, here's what a real plane VS. building crash looks like. Educate yourself, ok?
watch?v=9ZKf0s4aqkU
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
exactly we shouldnt need eye witness reports... but thanks to people like you wee need to prove the obvious, look theres a family portrait... but wait my dad isnt in the photo, that must mean my dad doesn't exist, thats the logic you're using...
quinofking 1 year ago
@quinofking
4. The witness contradictions:
Witnesses state that some part of the plane touched the ground, the wings sheared off, the tail came off, an engine ricocheted off the building into the mall parking area, the fuselage blew up when hitting the ground, the plane cartwheeled into the building. Reality: There is no physical evidence to support any of these accounts.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
oh so now you claim that people saw an airplane, and saw its tail and wings snap off.... a minute ago in your video u said that the guy never heard or saw a plane. so which is it? plane or no plane?. ever heard of the Innocence Program? a program to get wrongfully accused people out of prison, most of those wrong convictions were due to faulty eyewitnesses account so cant claim a nation wide conspiracy of Free-masons, based on Faulty eyewitness accounts, that actually got to
quinofking 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
each other (big mistake when interviewing wittiness), during what was probably the most stressful situation of their lives...
quinofking 1 year ago
@quinofking
5. There's no seismic data for an 80 ton plane crashing (and disintegrating) ground level against a reinforced building at 500++mph. Not even a blip..
6. The FDR data shows that the plane was too high (480 ft) to hit any of the light poles.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@quinofking
7. Pilots agree..
watch?v=jsPho6qhlX0
Statements from 250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals..
patriotsquestion911*com/pilots*html
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago 5
oh yeah... cuz you're 2-3 pictures chosen out of Dylan Avery's ass are a virtual tour of the pentagon on september 11... so because i cant find piece of the plane or bodies in those 2-3 pictures,that must mean a cruise missile or predator drone who no one saw was what really hit the pentagon, ah now i get it... if it wasnt for the fact that people actually saw an american airlines plane, and that piece of the plane and bodies can be seen in some pictures... stupid youtube wont let me post links
quinofking 1 year ago
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
OK now back from creationist logic land....
We have several photos of bodies several identifying passengers from flight 77 , and several debris of the plane... you do realize that a 757 is mostly aluminum right? aluminum not 60 tons of titanium and steel... just because certain parts of airplane were'nt "found" doesnt negate the other hundreds of pieces, where are the pieces of the drone or missile u speak of? its called google look up bodies of the pentagon on google images!!!
quinofking 1 year ago
@quinofking
aluminum not 60 tons of titanium and steel
Reality: There is no wreckage directly at the impact hole. Ya know? Where the 80 ton plane actually crashed?
look up bodies of the pentagon
Reality: There is not one body identified as a passenger.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago 9
@muzicmaker2001 If thats the case, what happened to the passengers? There was flight with that flightnumber in the air, with a flight manifest, passengers etc....what happened to the actual flight?
okturus 1 year ago
@okturus
i have no idea but it didn't hit the Pentagon
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
i say it was a cruise missile. definetly not flight 77. btw where the hell is all of the passengers.
chaosad09 1 year ago
I am on your side but i want you to be factual. At 1:19...you say there are no pieces of plane and your wrong in that moment.Please fix add an annotation.Thank You.
FreedumbFighter28 1 year ago
where the fuck is the plane??????????
Flavio12034 1 year ago
@Flavio12034
here it is!!!
Google images: pentagon plane debris and look for your self... id love to post a link but stupid youtube wont let me...
quinofking 1 year ago
the left wing whas long down under ground
davvvvo 1 year ago
What a fucking farse! They wanted war, and they got it. America is now a corporation that occupies, destroys and rebuilds nations. War is the game of kings. Do the research america! We need educated patriots for REAL change!!!!!!!!!
PeaceIsRad 1 year ago
U are a stupid asshole muzicmaker2001 !
LTAMIronHell 1 year ago
@LTAMIronHell
I don't think I'm stupid, but Flight 77 still did not crash into the Pentagon.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
The evidence disagrees, say hello to the serial number:
911myths(.)com/images/thumb/1/15/P911_debris_serial(.)jpg/800px-P911_debris_serial(.)jpg
AlaskaFarewell 1 year ago
@AlaskaFarewell
And that serial number was verified where exactly?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
You can verify it with your own eyes, that number is of the aircraft, and is in AA records.
To suggest further that this is a conspiracy means you also suggest the airline was in on it, and considering how they have fared after 9/11, you would fail.
AlaskaFarewell 1 year ago
@AlaskaFarewell
So, a random piece of unidentified wreckage on the ground is your show stopper? Really? You're funny dude.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@AlaskaFarewell
Just to prove the point, here's an AA mechanic, identifying it:
forums(.)randi(.)org/showpost(.)php?p=3183792&postcount=51
He also states this:
"The part in question is the power supply for the emergency lights. ...I assure you it was Flight 77, AA 757 5BP."
So, good luck trying to suggest AA is on it.
AlaskaFarewell 1 year ago
@AlaskaFarewell
"I assure you it was Flight 77, AA 757 5BP."
So, that's the official verification? Really? Some guy on a forum? Wow. That's thorough...LOL. Desperation is funny
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
Yes, your desperation is funny.
I enlist here no man off the street, the person in question is a AA mechanic.
You'll have to join the forum to see his full profile, but his authortiy on this is stated.
He does speak for AA, whom owned the plane in question, so either you produce your own expert to rebuttal him, or you just as well admit you were wrong.
AlaskaFarewell 1 year ago
@AlaskaFarewell
You do also know that there's no evidence that the wrecakage shown is even at the Pentagon. That could be my front lawn right next ot the swing sets. LOL Think before you post, ok?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
"You do also know that there's no evidence that the wrecakage shown is even at the Pentagon."
Oh, so you're argueing this now are we?
I mean if you want to go that route, sure, nearly every picture taken could ahve been "somewhere else", that they were taken at the scene does I suppose take a certian "leap of faith".
I can only give you this: the picture in question was taken by the same photographer, who took other pictures that were unquestionably at the pentagon.
AlaskaFarewell 1 year ago
@AlaskaFarewell
Yes, cool. Show a picture (or better yet video) of the wreckage with the Pentagon in the background. Also, show the official wreckage verification confirming the wreckage as being part of the Flight 77. I can smell the excuses on the horizon...lol
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
I don't need to produce such a thing, I believe the photographer is honest.
Either you prove he isn't, or we are done here.
And an AA employee using AA records to identify wreckage is official verification, I've given you the serieal number you asked for, now produce a conflicting source I asked for.
AlaskaFarewell 1 year ago
@AlaskaFarewell
Bottom line:
1. There is no proof that the picture was taken at the Pentagon.
2. There is no official verification of that wreckage as being part of Flight 77
So basically, this means nothing. Try again?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
1. Give me a reason to suspect the photo isn't honest, or your "negative evidence", isn't enough.
In the OJ simpson case, they did this by proving the GLove did not fit, you prove the same, PROVE to me there's a reason to suspect this photo isn't what it claims to me, or you're just grasping straws.
2. AA is official verification, you lost that one.
AlaskaFarewell 1 year ago
@AlaskaFarewell
1. It's just a lawn. Could be any location, right?
2. "AA" could mean this was from any American Airlines plane or possibly from an Alcoholic Anonymous plane? LOL. Nothing verified here at all except your desperation and obvious agenda to keep the 911 lie alive.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
1. No, it's the Pentagon's lawn. Either your prove there's reason to believe the photographer is dishonest, or you have nothing. Making claims and grasping straws earns you nothing.
2. I wasn't talking about the lable, I was talking about an AA employee using AA records to prove what it is.
In that instance all you can say is "oh the records were faked", in which case all I'm going to say is "screw you".
AlaskaFarewell 1 year ago
@AlaskaFarewell
1. Can you prove it's the Pentagon lawn? No? And just stating "it is" is not the proof I'm talking about.
2. Still not an official verification, huh?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
1. Can you rpove it's not the Pentagon's lawn? That's the mroe important detail.
Prove the glove doesn't fit, prove the photographer a fake, or it's you whose the fake.
2. American Airlines is all I need, they owned the plane.
AlaskaFarewell 1 year ago
@AlaskaFarewell
1. There is no proof that it is or isn't the Pentagon. That's the problem.
2. Yes, American Airlines only has one plane, Flight 77. Funny.
Ok, this discussion has been exhausted. Thanks for playing...
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
1. No, there is proof, the photographer whom took the picture, also took pictures from the scene with the Pentagon in view, implying the photo is from the scene as well.
If you're going to suggest the photo is not from there, then you have to prove the photographer is questionable, until then, the photo stays as presumed.
2. Yes, it's funny you call American Airlines wrong, since you know, it's THEIR plane, and THEIR records.
By whose authority do you override them exactly?
AlaskaFarewell 1 year ago
@AlaskaFarewell
Maybe this works for you somewhere else, but just repeating yourself isn't offering proof, ok? And how many sock puppet accounts do you have? Damn!!!
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
You saying the photo isn't from the scene doesn't disprove it, it just means you're getting desperate.
You are also calling American Airlines WRONG, the owners of the damn plane, again, who exactly gave you that insight or authority? As far as I've seen you're just a punk off the street, not a crash investigator.
Either you tell me WHY AA is wrong, or we're done here.
AlaskaFarewell 1 year ago
@AlaskaFarewell
Again, repeating yourself is not proof, ok? And can you show me where on AA's website they said the wreckage was part of Flight 77? Post it?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
So if you wish to suggest that the photgrapher was "in on it", fine, do that, but good luck proving it.
Until then, your "negative" evidence is not enough for me.
AlaskaFarewell 1 year ago
@AlaskaFarewell
"He does speak for AA"
Questions from your post:
1. Where does it say he speaks for AA
2. Where does it say the part belongs to Flight 77?
I must have the wrong link?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
Check his statement again, and then check his profile.
But for now, I'm done with you, f*ck off.
AlaskaFarewell 1 year ago
@AlaskaFarewell
Yes, that's the funny thing. I don't see the word "Flight 77" anywhere? Do you? Ok sock puppet boy. Happy 911 trollin'. Y'all come back now.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
answer this: if 77 did not crash into the pentagon then where did it go??? and the person who was in his car when he plane flew past only heard little noise because it was going so fast. doesnt take much to work it out yea?? and i think its sick to deny somthing like this !
DPL1146 1 year ago
@DPL1146
you think its sick to ask questions that doesn't make sense?
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth no i think its sick to deny the deaths of the passangers and crew of AA77
DPL1146 1 year ago
1. The metal used on any aircraft including flight 77 uses light weight sheet metal that is the thinness of an human hair.
2. Engine parts are not steel, they are aluminum because they need to be able to take strong forces acting against them and extreme heat, obviously this man has not done any research..
N5340L 1 year ago
Research this:
"Army Staff Sgt. Mark Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats.."-USA Today, 09/13/2001
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
I am confused maybe you can help me out, you say flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, yet you say a Army SSGT discovered bodies in the plane. So my question is, did you think flight 77 did or did not hit the pentagon?
N5340L 1 year ago
That's called a lie. Another lie is how the majority of the plane vanshed/disintegrated/melted/whatever, but all passengers were identified by DNA. There's no proof of these bodies, but they were identified. ok...
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
Once again do you believe that flight 77 did or did not hit the pentagon?
N5340L 1 year ago
I'll let you watch the above video and make a logical conclusion...
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
And the logical conclusion is that not one argument in this video is valid.
There all straw arguements based and psuedo facts and science, just like all truther arguments.
You're not getting past the people whom were there that day with this crap, and FYI, the largest pieces of the shuttle recovered were only about 6 feet across, pieces that large WERE recovered from Flight 77.
Alaskaslim 1 year ago
@Alaskaslim
Can you (or any traveling debunker) explain for once what happened to the wings, tail, cockpit, fuselage, (2) engines, luggage, 239 chairs, etc? Bonus question: Where did the 5000 gals of jet fuel go? Did it combust on the 2 sec fire in the CCTV? Let me know....
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
Yes, there's pictures of pieces of all of that, much of it melted in the fires, but some was recovered, even an engine in relatively intact condition.
The fuel evaporated or burned, and fire lasted far longer than "2 seconds", stop using that straw argument, testimony from the firefighters at scene talked of fires lasting until 9/13, not likely of the fuel, but still.
Alaskaslim 1 year ago
do you conspiracy theoirsts ever notice thr silver piece of air plane with a c on it in video clip 2:19
mybuddynick 2 years ago
how did the light poles fall?....magic?
chasing91a 2 years ago
Apparently, the FDR data shows that the "plane" missed all light poles and approached the Pentagon at an incline. This contradicts the official version and the CCVT.
watch?v=aMD2THUb87s
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
Hey dude, I just want you to know, you're make an ass of yourself here.
How many crash sites have you looked at? I've seen several, including this one, and I actually saw the debris that 757 left, I can even give you pictures of that, and the bodies recovered from the wreckage.
It's nice to know how little research you put into this, makes debunking you naive assholes who weren't there, and think they noticed something we didn't, all the easier.
Straw arguements, that's all you got eh?
Alaskaslim 2 years ago
I know. You were actually there, right? As you were with your campaign...
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
Well as long as you admit your wrong, it's good to know people can be honest.
Alaskaslim 2 years ago
The space shuttle didn't break up in such large piece by the way, the largest in fact was only 6 ft across, there were pieces from Flight 77 of similiar size, so that analogy doesn't work.
Alaskaslim 2 years ago
"pieces" of the bodies were recovered, as well as relatively intact bodies. There a link to them online if you recall.
The damage also extends 300 feet, why exactly the speaker in this video seems think you'd see all traces of the plane within the first 10 confounds me.
Alaskaslim 2 years ago
We know it wasn't a 757 that did it b/c if a 757 hit a light pole it would lose control. Watch loose change and you'll know what I'm talking about.
JumpStartation 1 year ago
they plane was not far when it hit the light pole, it would do hard damage but it would still be able to make it to the building...
N5340L 1 year ago
@N5340L Watch loose change. Plane have hit light poles and completly lost control byt this plane went perfectly fine.
JumpStartation 1 year ago
@JumpStartation
Straw arguement, a plane running into a light pole does not mean it will lose control, in Flight 77's case the mass of its wings were enough to shove them out of the way without hurting its ability to fly, United 191 did something similiar when it collidedinto lights over a highway, before continuing on into the airport it was trying to land at, straight into one of the water tanks.
So please, stop trying to list that crap as evidence, it's not.
Alaskaslim 1 year ago
@Alaskaslim Many planes have crashed into poles and lost control. A plane going to pick up former pres. Bush's crashed,
JumpStartation 1 year ago
@JumpStartation And many planes have crashed into poles, AND HAVE NOT, United 191, LOOK IT UP.
That arguement is crap.
Alaskaslim 1 year ago
@Alaskaslim Open your mind instead of believing only you are right.
JumpStartation 1 year ago
@JumpStartation
No kid, I "believe" I'am right, because I'm an Aviation Major, I know people who saw the attack and were inside the Pentagon that day, I've been to the Pentagon and know everything relevant about it, and i know the practciality of it all.
I don't even need the "official story", I know what happened, and it amuses me you think you know more than I do, you don't, you just watched Loose Change in your spare time, I lived this, my family lived this, you got nothing.
Alaskaslim 1 year ago
@Alaskaslim
Yes, witnesses made these comments:
"One of the aircraft's engines somehow ricocheted out of the building and arched into the Pentagon's mall parking area"-Charles H. Krohn
Was an engine found in the mall parking area? Nope
"The wings came off as if it went through an arch way leaving a hole in the side of the building"-Tom Hovis
Was there any sign of wing debris anywhere? Nope..
"The fuselage hit the ground and blew up."-Mary Owens
Any lawn damage? Nope..
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
.. how many straw arguements are you going to use?
Charles Krohn corrected himself, and said he meant pieces of the plane, which they did.
What Tom Hovis likely saw was the Wings cave in and start to disinigrate as the majority mass of the plane entered intot he Pentagon's facade.
The Mary owens quote is just you being overly literal, and makes you joke for thinking it's an arguement.
Alaskaslim 1 year ago
@Alaskaslim
how many excuses can you make for the many any inconsistencies? It's laughable at this point..
"it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the GROUND"-Tim Timmerman
"The fuselage hit the GROUND and blew up."-Mary Owens
"banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the GROUND"-Steve Anderson
"Then he caught an edge of his wing on the GROUND."-David Marra
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
These are people unsure of what they saw in a fraction of a second, or you being overly literal again.
None of this denies that a plane crashed there, and thus irrelevent.
Show me testimony of what people saw while the plane was still in flight, of people that claim they saw something other than a plane, heard something else, words that SUPPORTS something other than a plane crashed there, or you admit, you have nothing either than your own "suspicion".
Alaskaslim 1 year ago
@Alaskaslim
"it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the NOSE break up"-Tim Timmerman
"the NOSE of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C ring into A-E Drive."-Every Walker Lee
It (pentagon) barely budged as the NOSE of the plane curled upwards and crumpled."-Vin Narayanan
"And it went in through three rings. I'm told the NOSE is still in there,..about one ring away."-Donald Rumsfeld
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@Alaskaslim
I guess they all missed what happened to the NOSE also..ya know, the front the plane? More excuses for the witness accounts? Either stand by them or dismiss them..
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
They found the nose. I stand by what they mean, I don't have to stand by their literal account, and in fact, it would be a poor investigator that would do so, but luckily you aren't one, are you?
Alaskaslim 1 year ago
@Alaskaslim
Let me take a stab at your logic here. Just a stab. You stand by the fact that all saw a plane, but make excuses for the inconsistencies that don't mirror or match the official version? Is that about right? And as an investigator, shouldn't you evaluate the whole account?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
They match the official version where it matters, that there 1. Was a plane, and 2. it crashed where it was found.
Again, if your going to argue this, then you must admit there was a plane, and if you do, then obviously were done here.
Alaskaslim 1 year ago
@Alaskaslim
Your logic makes no sense. I have to admit there was a plane when you can't even produce any direct evidence verifying the plane? You're funny dude...
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
You admit there is a plane by citing "inconsistencies" in witness statements, when they all still agree on one thing, there was a plane.
You can't have it both ways, are you arguing the inconsistencies of how the plane crashed, or you arguing there was a plane at all?
Alaskaslim 1 year ago
@Alaskaslim
No comment on all of the witnesses that saw the plane hit the ground? Another strawman? Did they all correct themselves at a later date? Overly literal again? Let me know...
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
That's your strawman, you think people who confuse the plane hitting the ground instead of the ground floor of the Pentagon is a valid arguement, it's not, it doens't deny a plane hit, and it doesn't support whatever the hell you're trying to prove.
Show me the testimony of what I asked for, or this arguement of yours is debunked.
Alaskaslim 1 year ago
@Alaskaslim
Oh, they all confused the plane as hitting the ground? Ok, right..It's interesting how debunkers point to the many people who witnessed the plane, but make excuses for their inconsistent accounts? That makes no sense...
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
Yes, the Facade of the Pentagon intially stood up, it doesn't surprise me some confused the aircraft with hitting the ground in front instead of the Pentagon itself.
And still yet, NONE of this denies a plane crashed there. So tell me, what is your point, what is your arguement here? Because it's trully escaping me right now., if you're going to argue this, then you admit there was a plane.
Alaskaslim 1 year ago
@Alaskaslim
1.Witness inconsistencies
2. None of the wreckage verified
3. FDR data shows the plane missing all light poles
4. Impact hole (size, intact windows, no engine impact damage, no wreckage)
5. No massive fire (5000 gals of jet fuel)
6. Passengers found intact, but 90% of plane vanishes
7. CCTV/videos directly after impact
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
1. Witnesses inconsistenceis over a fraction of a second, and not that a plane was there.
2. Wreckage was verified.
3. The FDR data shows the plane hitting the poles, or at least following a course that would have allowed it to.
4. The Impact hole was larger than the fuselage, as you would expect.
5. Firefighters say there was a massive fire.
6. "intact passengers"? Depends on your defintion of "intact".
7. the videos were released.
Alaskaslim 1 year ago
@Alaskaslim
1. That fraction is all incorrect?
2. Proof of this verification (posted)
3. Proof of the correct FDR data (posted)
4. Wings, tail? Did OBL take them as a souvenir?
5. Video evidence/burn damage shows no fire. Maybe you can use the "over a fraction" BS for the firemen?
6. Intact=still strapped to their seats
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
1. Your citing inconsistencies over what people saw in a fraction of a second, the argument is invalid.
2. Fine: rense(.)com(/)general32(/)phot(.)htm
3. Fine: google "Arabesque: 9/11 Truth"
4. The Wings and tail broke apart, just like that F-4.
5. The video evidence does show a fire, and are you to tell me the firefighters that fought those flames were lying?
6. Yes, but the bodies themselves were scorched and largely beyond recognition, as you would expect.
Alaskaslim 1 year ago
@Alaskaslim
1. Still inconsistencies anyway you slice (more excsues)
2. I actually meant an official verification?
3. See # 2., official
4. Wing/tail went where exactly when they broke off? Disintegrated?
5. Post video evidence of this massive fire from 5000 gals jet fuel
6. Any proof of these bodies strapped in?
I guess it boils down to proof, which you have none...
2.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
1. And nothing mroe than what you would expect.
2. The pictures were taken by FEMA investigators, so yes, OFFICIAL verification is there.
3. Read it again,th ere is a statement by the NTSB listed there
4. Yes, just like the F-4. Pieces were recovered, but not in segements much larger than a few feet.
5. And you know what such a fire should look like? You know what? I'm just going to trust the firefighters who were there over you, you know since they were there and all.
Alaskaslim 1 year ago
@Alaskaslim
6. Yes there is, provided from the Mossai case.
Alaskaslim 1 year ago
@Alaskaslim
6. The Moussaoui Trial exhibits do not show passenger(S) still strapped in their seats. There are no photos available showing even 10 bodies of the 184 victims...
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
At least one did, I know that for a fact, if you looked at htem you apparently don't understand what you're looking at.
Also, firefighter testimony:
fireengineering(.)com/index/articles/display/165238/articles/fire-engineering/volume-155/issue-11/features/the-pentagon-attack-on-9-11-arlington-county-va-fire-department-response(.)html
Alaskaslim 1 year ago
@Ala